Political Ideology and Consumption: Perspectives and Effects

Abstract

Next article FreePolitical Ideology and Consumption: Perspectives and EffectsRashmi Adaval and Robert S. Wyer Jr.Rashmi Adaval and Robert S. Wyer Jr.PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThe influence of political ideology on individuals' behavior and their endorsement of social policies is pervasive, and its impact on their economic and social well-being is incontrovertible. The influence of political ideology is evident not only in how recent social events have been interpreted (e.g., the storming of the Capitol on January 6, the murder of George Floyd, etc.) but also in people's everyday nonpolitical behavior (e.g., their choice and purchases of consumer goods and other consumption-related activity). The research reported in this special issue documents the effects of political ideology on reactions to various consumption-related experiences. Although no single theory of political ideology can easily account for the diversity of the phenomena reported in this special issue, an understanding of the different perspectives from which political ideology has been studied is helpful to understand these effects.Much of the research on political ideology identifies people with different beliefs along on a liberalism-conservatism dimension. Although these end points are closely aligned with Democratic and Republican political parties, party identity is not always consistent with people's beliefs on specific issues (Wyer et al. 1991; Huddy, Mason, and Aaroe 2015). Yet the current disposition of federal legislators to vote along party lines and the polarized attitudes of those who belong to these parties suggest that the schism emerges partly from deep-seated differences in ideological beliefs and thinking styles. Differences in conservative-liberal beliefs have been attributed to personality, evolution and genetics, all of which presumably affect the cognitive and physiological reactions of individuals to a variety of issues. In the following section, we provide a background of research that has been conducted from different perspectives. We then review the research reported in this volume in relation to these perspectives.General Perspectives in Political IdeologyEvolutionary Roots: The Feeling BrainEvolutionary psychologists have often relied on the parasite stress theory (Fincher and Thornhill 2012) to describe how conservatism and liberalism evolve. According to this theory, people learn to avoid individuals who are likely to harm them via infections and transmitted disease. This response can give rise to conservative social attitudes against strangers and foreigners as they represent a threat (Brown, Fincher, and Walasek 2016). Not surprisingly, conservatives respond more negatively to ambiguous faces that seem threatening to them (Vigil 2010). Similar avoidance reactions have been noted toward other types of negative or aversive stimuli. For example, political conservatives report greater disgust and violations of purity than liberals do (Inbar, Pizarro, and Bloom 2009; Inbar et al. 2012). They also react more negatively to disgusting themes (e.g., mutilated bodies) in functional MRI studies (Ahn et al. 2014). Thus, according to this evolutionary perspective, purity, sanctity, and in-group bias arise out of this fear of contamination - a quick gut-level affective response.Interestingly, this response has been related to a sense of moral violation and associated with a different conceptualization known as moral foundations theory (Haidt 2007). This theory suggests that people make moral judgments quickly and intuitively and that these intuitive decisions about right and wrong are the basis for principles relating to care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. Those high in conservatism tend to value purity, loyalty to in-groups, and submission to authority (Haidt and Graham 2007). In contrast, liberals value care and the ability to empathize—principles that foster fairness and an openness toward members of the outgroup. These differences imply that conservatives are disposed to make more intuitive, affect-based judgments, particularly when there are violations of purity, loyalty, and authority. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to be concerned with fairness and care for others—judgments that require reflection and cognitive elaboration.Differences in the emphasis on feelings (vs. reflection) were noted by Hofstadter (1963) in his analysis of the role of anti-intellectualism in daily life. Although these ideas originated in the McCarthy era 60 years ago, they are equally applicable today. Intellectualism is characterized by a "critical, creative and contemplative state of mind" (1963, 29). Unlike intelligence (which refers to the ability to seize the meaning of information quickly and adapt to its implications), intellectualism is reflective, being characterized by a critical evaluation of ideas and the entertainment of alternatives to the status quo. In contrast, anti-intellectualism is characterized by "resentment and suspicion of the life of the mind" (9). It is exemplified by a reliance on intuition as a basis for judgment rather than a thoughtful evaluation of alternatives. To this extent, anti-intellectuals' judgments and decisions are likely to be influenced by emotional appeals and the use of heuristics. Hofstadter quotes the Grand Wizard of the KKK as saying that "all action comes from emotion rather than from ratiocination … our emotions and instincts … have been bred into us for thousands of years, longer than reason has had a place in the human brain" (141).Neurological evidence is consistent with these ideas about the reliance on feelings and cognitions. MRI studies show that conservatives have greater gray matter than liberals in the right amygdala, a region that is sensitive to emotionally salient information such as fear inducing stimuli (Kanai et al. 2011). Liberals, on the other hand, have relatively greater gray matter and ERP activity in the anterior cingulate cortex, which processes signs of change, and in the left prefrontal cortex that typifies approach tendencies (Amodio et al. 2007; Schreiber et al. 2013). Thus, much of this research suggests that right brain activation (avoidance reactions) characterize conservatives, whereas left-brain activation (approach tendencies) are more characteristic of liberals.Personality and Motivational DifferencesAlthough political orientations might be associated with certain genes (Eaves et al. 1999; Alford, Funk, and Hibbing 2005; Dawes et al. 2014; Hatemi et al. 2014), it is difficult to apportion the variance that comes from an individual's response to environmental stressors, life events and genetic predisposition. Personality develops in response to both genetic predispositions and environmental situations. Thus, to the extent that political ideology emerges from an individual's reaction to the environment, repeated responses should lead to stable personality characteristics. Indeed, the bulk of the research on political ideology has drawn on personality differences to explain how those who subscribe to different ideologies differ (Jost et al 2003; Caprara et al. 2006). When the "big five" traits (openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) are correlated with political ideology, the strongest relationships appear in the cases of conscientiousness and openness. The traits associated with conscientiousness and openness appear to map on to the avoidance and approach tendencies mentioned earlier. Conservatives show a stronger relationship with traits associated with conscientiousness (e.g., stability, conformity, tradition, order, structure, closure, purity, authority, preference for low complexity, etc.), whereas liberals show a stronger correlation with traits associated with openness (e.g., novelty, flexibility and variability, tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, equality, etc.).These personality traits obviously induce different motivational tendencies. For example, the desire to reduce fear and anxiety about the world in which they live motivates individuals to adopt attitudes and behaviors that reaffirm order and stability. Conservatives might acquire a well-defined system of beliefs about the world in which they live (i.e., a cultural worldview) that provides a feeling of stability and control and allows them to make sense of the events that occur in daily life. When events occur that threaten the validity of these beliefs, however, they experience anxiety and become motivated to regain their feeling of stability by reaffirming the validity of this worldview (Jost et al. 2003). Although this anxiety can be situationally induced, it can also become chronic, resulting from an accumulation of life experiences that give rise to a general feeling of insecurity. The effects of chronic anxiety can be manifested in several ways, including a need for cognitive closure and an intolerance of ambiguity (Carney et al. 2008; Jost, Federico, and Napier 2009; Caparos et al. 2015), uncertainty avoidance (Jost et al. 2007), and resistance to change (Jost et al. 2003). More generally, conservatives might be motivated to base judgments and decisions on previously formed criteria and resist the adoption of social policies that might require changes in the status quo.In contrast, the beliefs that compose liberals' worldview are less rigidly defined and thus are less likely to be threatened by events that call their validity into question. Therefore, liberals are more flexible, more open to alternative points of view, and more willing to seek diversity in their life experiences. Moreover, they are more tolerant of others' views that differ from their own, more willing to empathize with others, and more inclined to value fairness and equality in social policy as well as in their personal lives.A Cognitive Analysis of Political IdeologiesThe cognitions associated with different political ideologies can also be understood in terms of specific cognitive operations or information processing tendencies (e.g., Carraro, Castelli, and Macchiella 2011; Castelli and Carraro 2011; Dodd, Hibbing, and Smith 2016; Mills et al. 2016), as well as larger level cognitive systems of thinking (Lakoff 2002).One stream of research focuses on how individuals with different ideological leanings respond cognitively to environmental stimuli. Some research shows that conservatives are more sensitive to negative stimuli. For example, they pay greater attention to negative emotion words in a Stroop task and respond more slowly. They also are more likely to direct their attention to areas where negative information is presented (Carraro et al. 2011), are faster to fixate on negative information in eye-tracking studies (Dodd et al. 2016), and more likely to remember negative information (Mills et al. 2016).The heightened sensitivity to threat naturally translates into thinking styles. Conservatives tend to use heuristics (stereotypes), whereas those who are more liberal tend to be more comfortable with reflection as measured by the cognitive reflection test (Deppe et al. 2015). Liberals also tend to be less field dependent and are more likely to engage in contemplation (Talhelm et al. 2015). Conservatives are more likely than liberals to show a persistent pattern of responding (e.g., in go-no-go tasks) even when it is not advantageous to do so (Amodio et al. 2007). This resistance to change is consistent with their greater tendency to use of heuristics and stereotypes.A broader view of the cognitive underpinnings of political ideology is provided by Lakoff (2002). Taking a linguistic perspective, he suggests that the conceptual basis of how we think about issues such as morality, politics, and economics is fundamentally metaphorical in nature. Although this abstract thought is based on the lower-level input from the sensorimotor or emotional system, metaphors are essential to gain an understanding of more abstract concepts. Ideological differences in politics are therefore embodied in two different cognitive systems, each of which has its own set of rules and principles that guide behavioral decisions and evaluations of social policy. One, metaphorically characterized as a "strict father" system, emphasizes self-discipline, self-reliance and the acceptance of personal responsibility, obedience to authority, and the use of reward and punishment to reinforce behavior. The other, "nurturant parent" system, emphasizes the need to provide support and protection to those who cannot help themselves and is characterized by empathy and caring, fairness and equal opportunity, and the provision of resources that help people to have a happy life. In contrast to the strict parent system, social responsibility is motivated by love and respect for others and not by the fear of punishment. Lakoff provides an in-depth analysis of the implications of these cognitive systems for judgments and behavior in numerous life domains, including reactions to federally funded social programs, taxation, education, and crime and punishment. (Social programs, for example, are seen by "nurturant parent" liberals as ensuring citizens' basic needs and facilitating life fulfillment but are seen by "strict parent" conservatives as coddling and undermining self-reliance.)An IntegrationIn combination, the three perspectives outlined above suggest that ideological differences in conservatism and liberalism might be understood by considering distinctions in how members that belong to different ends of the spectrum use feelings, vary in their motivation to maintain the status quo and consequently the traits they value and express, as well as their cognitive processes. In general, conservatives are characterized by the use of intuition and emotion as a basis for judgments and decisions, whereas liberals are characterized by their use of reason and logical analysis. Conservatives, because of their greater sensitivity to threat, are more likely than liberals to resist changes in the existing social system. In terms of broader level values, conservatives' reliance on heuristics and fixed patterns of behavior is reflected in conformity to clearly defined principles of social behavior (consistent with a "strict parent" metaphor). In contrast, liberals are characterized by their use of reason and logical analysis, by openness to change and diversity, and by the endorsement of a social system that values fairness, social equality, and support for individuals in need.These general orientations have implications for the way in which political ideology affects a wide range of consumption behaviors. Although the research reported in this special issue makes specific assumptions about the factors that account for ideological differences in the behaviors described, it can generally be conceptualized in terms of the three formulations we have outlined.Effects of Political Ideology on Consumer BehaviorReceptivity and Openness to ExperiencesA common thread that pervades all three conceptualizations of political ideology concerns the openness to new experiences. Several findings reported in this issue are consistent with this implication. Rogers and Jost (2022), for example, find that liberals engage in a wide diversity of consumption-related activities. Compared to conservatives, for example, they attend a greater diversity of live performances, have more hobbies, prefer a greater variety of music genres, and drink more different brands of beer. On the other hand, they are less inclined than conservatives to seek variety in activities that exemplify American culture, such as visits to fast-food or chain restaurants. The effects are independent of age or income.This ideological difference was also identified in other research reported in this issue. Buechner et al. (2022), for example, found that liberals are more inclined than conservatives to prefer global experiences (e.g., beer brands from around the world, college courses that come from different cultures, etc.) to local ones. Although the authors attribute these effects to differences in cognitive flexibility, they reflect an openness to new experiences as well.Openness, however, can be situationally induced and consequently can sometimes override the chronic effects of political ideology. Errmann, Seo, and Septianto (2022) exposed participants to a charitable appeal from either a source that emphasizes authority, duty and in-group loyalty (the Salvation Army) or a source that emphasizes harm reduction, fairness, and care (the World Wildlife Fund). Both conservatives' and liberals' reactions to the appeal were typically based on their stereotyped attitudes toward the source of the appeal and the benefits the charity provides. In a series of studies, however, participants' "mindfulness" was first induced by asking them to focus their attention either internally (on their body sensations) or externally (on other people in the environment). This procedure led participants to think more carefully about implications of the appeal they considered later and to base their judgment on these implications rather than using a superficial (heuristic) basis for judgment. Thus, it increased the willingness to support charities whose values were ideologically inconsistent with their own. This was true of both liberals and conservatives.Need for Predictability and StructureThe lack of openness to new experiences among conservatives is also reflected in their need for predictability and structure. Chan, Northey, and Borau (2022), however, distinguish between economic conservatism and social conservatism. Economic conservatism stems from a need to preserve stability and hierarchies that help make life more predictable. Their desire for predictability is evident in their preference for automated products which provide output of consistent quality. Social conservatism, on the other hand, emphasizes conventionalism (tradition) and submission to authority. Individuals who score high on social conservatism do not reveal such a preference for automated products.An important feature of these findings is that activating concepts that were objectively unrelated to the products being judged influenced reactions to these products. Research in other domains, such as mortality salience (Solomon, Greenberg, and Pyszczynski 2004) and need for control (Jia and Wyer 2022) also suggests that the need for structure is pervasive and that, once activated, its effects can generalize over a variety of experiential domains.Kwon, Manikas, and Barone (2022) provide intriguing examples of this generalization. They hypothesized that surrounding a stimulus (a product description or a persuasive message) by a frame can convey a sense of structure and stability that generalizes to the stimulus itself (see Kwan, Dai, and Wyer [2017] for similar generalization effects). Political conservatives, who presumably have a need for structure, respond more favorably than liberals to a framed stimulus than to an unframed one. In a particularly intriguing study, participants read governmental recommendations for controlling the that were either presented in a frame or Conservatives were generally less likely than liberals to the recommendations of had no on liberals' acceptance of the it had a impact on conservatives' acceptance they had a high need for structure. Moreover, conservatives had a low need for structure, had a negative that they governmental on their conceptualization and the effects of system motivation suggest that liberals and conservatives different values that influence reactions to life events they For example, conservatives acquire values that them to the in which they live loyalty, to authority, These values to the "strict parent" and the acceptance of personal These values also lead them to react negatively to that provide support for people in need intriguing is provided by and (2022), who find that conservatives resist in federally funded social that provide benefits on the basis of need On the other hand, they are willing to benefits from that have a thus them to the benefits they Liberals, in contrast, prefer a These findings seem consistent with the strict and parent different of the difference in liberals' and conservatives' values was identified by and To liberals are a for others, whereas conservatives are more responsibility, and in-group These different values be reflected in of either to an or to in-group as a Moreover, the focus on the or an also on how the was Thus, people who are the that an American from the presumably focus on the to the In this conservatives, who are concerned with their personal should the of from the to be In contrast, that people are to the of who This them to think about the to the as a In this who are concerned about others' should the to be whereas conservatives, who are less concerned about others, should by these conservatives not the of the American of the whereas liberals not the of who in the as a These findings help a that has do conservatives resist the The salience of the values might provide an how respond to products and that are aligned with a conservative or liberal ideology. for example, should be by liberals because they are concerned with for Conservatives, on the other hand, might find it more of the status quo and should be less likely to respond favorably to and (2022) these tendencies and show that this might appear to be the liberals do not respond well the is inconsistent with their Conservatives, on the other respond favorably the their These effects are by affective responses to ideologically consistent the was to be favorably to and (2022) found a similar to values in a Some brands (e.g., have a liberal whereas others (e.g., have a conservative individuals a from a whose is with their own political they are less likely to it particularly political ideology is to their is not or ideologically consistent are in the it of these be however, to that conservatives and liberals always make judgments and decisions consistent with their political ideology. This on their of the implications of their judgments and the salience of their values the intriguing set of studies by and (2022) exemplify this are often with more than they to In such they have a choice between or the which they comfortable and the of the to When the of is salient to liberals to the and to the as a Therefore, they typically rather than the be In contrast, conservatives are more motivated by Thus, they are more inclined than liberals to the to These different however, are not evident the of is to their to of common in the perspectives we outlined is that conservatives are more likely to use series of studies by and (2022) not only conservatives use of a as a basis for judgment but shows that of a (i.e., the of can the They found that when the faces were both conservatives and liberals those with a high as the was related to conservatives' it was related negatively to liberals' When the faces were attributed to however, the was not associated with judgments or and this was true of political In these findings suggest that conservatives are more likely than liberals to use as a to the is only the is when the is the that is associated with is by the low that is characteristic of in general, and so the effects sensitivity to was by and They how brands that a (i.e., a stereotyped of as reactions to these different brands on their political et al. (2022) that liberal are likely to seek and equality for and the of as the existing status quo and their in Thus, they might against of in liberal might also support the right of to themselves in way they to of and studies that liberal were likely to appeals because of their of they were willing to that on the other hand, were less to such differences and to be generally more of et findings suggest that conservatives are more inclined to use social that are in the of the effects of political ideology on consumption was three different perspectives that motivational and cognitive Although specific findings can be interpreted using different we suggest that a greater focus on understanding the extent to which these effects are to cognitive or motivational factors might help our understanding of the effects of ideology on Thus, effects are to stable differences as to obviously but example, of the research that chronic differences in the effects of political ideology on judgments and decisions, these differences can be or by however, suggests that ideological differences are evident only when factors make concepts The factors that give rise to these of need to be This along with the research reported in this special issue, the for these of Alford, Hibbing, and of Political in Funk, and Hibbing Political American Political in Jost, and of and in Fincher, and Walasek

Topics & Concepts